The UW needs to stop aiding the RIAA for this specific reason: The RIAA requires no legal proof whatsoever to send one of their letters of extortion demanding money. However, if the UW refused to send letters, the RIAA would have to subpoena the information under an actual court of law. This is how our country is supposed to run.
I find it interesting that not one person in IT (except for those that actually had illegal songs on the sys - they usually were admins running repos for p2p anyway) have been sued by the RIAA. I can't help but wonder if these vultures don't reseach their victim with the explicit notion of avoiding people with technical background (save the admin running a music p2p sys). I personally don't think it's an accident, but I think it's attributable to the facts that
-all the cases are based on FastTrack, which technically sophisticated file sharers apparently haven't been using for years
--no technically sophisticated person bent on copyright infringement would be using his own computer, his own internet access account, his own wireless signal, etc.
--any technically sophisticated person engaged in 'copyright piracy' would probably be using dummies, zombies, slaves, whatever... and would not be using his or her own computer.
In other words, the RIAA's campaign is not geared towards catching serious copyright infringers; it is geared towards disrupting people's lives and making a lot of noise and causing a lot of pain. The RIAA itself has termed it a "driftnet" strategy. See ACLU brief in Capitol v. Foster. But if it's a driftnet, it's a pretty strange driftnet.... because the one thing it is NOT designed to catch is the 'copyright pirate' the RIAA professes to be 'angling' for.
I seriously doubt that she expects that copyright will be forfeited. If they are found liable on the copyright misuse counterclaim their copyrights probably will be forfeited.
I would just like to extend a genuine THANK YOU to you, NewYorkCountryLawyer, for being here on Slashdot and keeping the record straight. You're just the sort of person this site needs more of. Please keep up the good work. Thank you, VanessaE.
They were told by the ISP that she was the owner of the internet access account that had been assigned that dynamic IP address as of a certain date and time. There are at least 20 explanations that I can think of -- and I am neither a techie nor an imaginative person -- for how that can have been meaningless. E.g., ISP clock not being synchronized to MediaSentry's, misidentification by ISP, coasting off signal, zombies, etc. etc. The important thing is that prior to the lawsuit she immediately offered to let them inspect her computer to verify that it had nothing to do with her; they declined, saying they wanted their money.
The complaint seeks forfeiture of the record companies' sound recording copyrights in the recordings alleged to have been infringed. If Ms. Andersen wins, the record companies will lose the actual copyrights themselves.
Until the time the award is actually paid in full, other defendents will be reluctant to pursue the same course. Au contraire. I feel pretty certain that the decisions in Capitol v. Foster have encouraged other defendants to fight, and encouraged lawyers to jump into the fray.
"and counting"...
So that means they still haven't issued a cheque?
Is there anything in particular that's holding up the parade? 1. Yes the games continue; they've now asked for an evidentiary hearing.
2. The judge will probably allow Ms. Foster to supplement her fee request to include the work done by her attorney during these latter proceedings.
3. Patience. "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."
Presuming the judge grants her request, the RIAA will no doubt engage in their usual legal shenanigans and manage to delay any final disposition for at least another two years, during which time a lot could happen. One thing that would happen is that their exposure would probably triple.
1. Don't blame Cowboy Neal, I wrote the heading and take full responsibility for it.
2. I don't consider it misleading. The cases are brought by the RIAA on behalf of 4 big record companies. The cases are controlled strictly by the RIAA. I use "RIAA" as shorthand for "The four major record companies who have authorized the RIAA to bring suit on their behalf". It would be way too time consuming and space consuming to keep on referring to the 4 suing companies + the dozens of affiliated labels who wind up as plaintiffs in these cases. So technically it's the record labels that appear as the plaintiffs who have been sued, but I think just about everybody knows what I'm talking about, especially if they read the article.
3. How would you have written the headline within the space constraints of a Slashdot headline (approximately 5 or 6 words)?
Technically it's the record company plaintiffs SONY BMG, BMG, Interscope, Atlantic, Virgin, and Capitol, that will be liable for the attorneys fee award. I use the term RIAA as shorthand for the cartel of 4 big record companies who are using the RIAA to bring suits on their behalf. The suits are strictly controlled by the RIAA, which is representing the four so-called competitors as a single unit.
If I filed a few thousand random lawsuits, would I be prosecuted for wasting the court's time? If so, why isn't the RIAA being punished for filing countless frivolous lawsuits? Hopefully it will be.
But for that to happen, defendants have to fight back vigorously and tenaciously. For that to happen, people in this country have to come together and help them.
2. I've been on Slashdot for over a year and a half, long enough to recognize a troll when I see one. Too bad you're an "anonymous coward" too.
3. Of course an order can be obtained ex parte where you "have reason to believe [the person from whom discovery is sought] will delete evidence"; the RIAA has never had any reason to think that any ISP or university would "delete evidence" of the identity of the "Doe". 4. Jerk.
Thank you sir as always for sticking around and helping us legal novices make heads and tails. My pleasure, dagoalieman. We've got to stick together in this thing.
Sorry, I guess you'd be in a better position than I am to know the particulars of the case.;) I made a snap assumption that UMN had given in to the RIAA demands and that it was individual students fighting this battle, as was the case at OSU and Boston. If that's not the case... well, good for UMN! Nothing to be sorry about.... I'm a little closer to the situation than you are, and have information you don't have.
UNM has not given in to anything. And yes..... good for UNM!!!
As a result of the astuteness and decency of Judge Garcia and UNM, these students will be the first students in the country to have a chance to oppose the discovery motion BEFORE it's already been granted. This was a very, very good thing.
I came here to read what people thought about this decision against the RIAA and instead I've scrolled through 50 posts about "irregardless"! I wish there was an option to collapse individual threads. I see stuff like this all the time. I've seen many discussions devolve into whole pages about some slightly related topic. Do you think there's any possibility it was intentional?
It is a blow because their whole scheme relies on being able to make this happen easily and cheaply. They need to be able to easily identify people based on very shaky evidence, and bully them in to settling. They cannot afford to have to go through a real trial in each case. Despite what they like to pretend, they are not losing millions of dollars per person, and the people they sue don't have that kind of money. Plus, if they start losing cases, that sets legal precedent and can make future cases that much harder. So for this to keep working they need things fast and easy.
A big part of that is easy discovery. They need to be able to just hand the court a list of John Doe suits with IPs and demand that ISPs hand over subscriber info with no argument. If they have to actually go through the proper proceedings it may become quickly not worth their time, especially since they are likely going to need to get better evidence beforehand.
These are not solid lawsuits we are talking here, hence why they've never actually won a suit (at least not that I am aware of). They've bullied plenty of people in to settling, and dropped suits that went to trial, but they've never actually argued in court and won. They'd do it, if it was a strong, legit case but it isn't.
Hence this IS a blow to them. Excellent analysis, Sycraft-fu.
... file-sharing attorney...
Yo, Ray! Stop sharing those files, you rascal! Yeah, I thought Eric's dubbing me a "file-sharing" attorney was kind of a poor choice of words.
The article mentions a New York judge that ruled the opposite way in a similar case. Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone explain exactly how it's deemed even mildly legal for the RIAA to file suits against individuals and have motions against them when they're not allowed to face their accuser due to secrecy? This seems like an open and shut case to me. I agree. I can't for the life of me imagine why any judge in the United States ever signed an ex parte RIAA discovery order. It's completely contrary to well settled legal principles for them to have done so.
It's nice to see a judge applying some common sense to these RIAA fishing expeditions. You know what would be nicer? If the universities showed some spine. Something along the lines of: "Our students pay $x thousand per year to attend our institution. They entrust us with their future, their physical well-being, and every single piece of personal information they have. We have an obligation not to allow every scum-sucker who wants a piece of them to abuse that unique relationship." (As a public institution, UNM could also add something like, "The citizens of the great state of New Mexico do not allocate a substantial portion of their money to us so that..." etc.) Honestly, if universities didn't knuckle under as easily as they do, most of these cases would probably never make it to court -- or if they did, it would be the RIAA vs. universities instead of individual students, which would at least be something closer to a fair fight. Daniel, you are absolutely right that the universities need to show some spine.
But I have a hunch that the University of New Mexico is doing just that.
Slashdot Mirror
1. To donate to defendants in RIAA cases, use this link.
2. If you wish to earmark the contribution for this specific case indicate that it's for "UMG v. Lindor".
3. Thank you. Bless you.
-all the cases are based on FastTrack, which technically sophisticated file sharers apparently haven't been using for years
--no technically sophisticated person bent on copyright infringement would be using his own computer, his own internet access account, his own wireless signal, etc.
--any technically sophisticated person engaged in 'copyright piracy' would probably be using dummies, zombies, slaves, whatever... and would not be using his or her own computer.
In other words, the RIAA's campaign is not geared towards catching serious copyright infringers; it is geared towards disrupting people's lives and making a lot of noise and causing a lot of pain. The RIAA itself has termed it a "driftnet" strategy. See ACLU brief in Capitol v. Foster. But if it's a driftnet, it's a pretty strange driftnet.... because the one thing it is NOT designed to catch is the 'copyright pirate' the RIAA professes to be 'angling' for.
Much appreciated.
They were told by the ISP that she was the owner of the internet access account that had been assigned that dynamic IP address as of a certain date and time. There are at least 20 explanations that I can think of -- and I am neither a techie nor an imaginative person -- for how that can have been meaningless. E.g., ISP clock not being synchronized to MediaSentry's, misidentification by ISP, coasting off signal, zombies, etc. etc. The important thing is that prior to the lawsuit she immediately offered to let them inspect her computer to verify that it had nothing to do with her; they declined, saying they wanted their money.
1. It comes from caselaw.
2. It would mean those particular sound recordings are no longer copyrighted. It would have no bearing on the copyrights in the underlying song.
The complaint seeks forfeiture of the record companies' sound recording copyrights in the recordings alleged to have been infringed. If Ms. Andersen wins, the record companies will lose the actual copyrights themselves.
I guess you didn't read the court papers. She's suing the record companies, and the RIAA, and Safenet, and SSCLC.
https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/dbd_ donate
2. The judge will probably allow Ms. Foster to supplement her fee request to include the work done by her attorney during these latter proceedings.
3. Patience. "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."
All the cases I've seen deal with FastTrack rather than BitTorrent.
In Capitol v. Foster, 2 1/2 months of such shenanigans caused the RIAA's exposure to increase from $55k to $114k, and counting.
1. Don't blame Cowboy Neal, I wrote the heading and take full responsibility for it.
2. I don't consider it misleading. The cases are brought by the RIAA on behalf of 4 big record companies. The cases are controlled strictly by the RIAA. I use "RIAA" as shorthand for "The four major record companies who have authorized the RIAA to bring suit on their behalf". It would be way too time consuming and space consuming to keep on referring to the 4 suing companies + the dozens of affiliated labels who wind up as plaintiffs in these cases. So technically it's the record labels that appear as the plaintiffs who have been sued, but I think just about everybody knows what I'm talking about, especially if they read the article.
3. How would you have written the headline within the space constraints of a Slashdot headline (approximately 5 or 6 words)?
Technically it's the record company plaintiffs SONY BMG, BMG, Interscope, Atlantic, Virgin, and Capitol, that will be liable for the attorneys fee award. I use the term RIAA as shorthand for the cartel of 4 big record companies who are using the RIAA to bring suits on their behalf. The suits are strictly controlled by the RIAA, which is representing the four so-called competitors as a single unit.
But for that to happen, defendants have to fight back vigorously and tenaciously. For that to happen, people in this country have to come together and help them.
1. I've been practicing law for 28+ years.
2. I've been on Slashdot for over a year and a half, long enough to recognize a troll when I see one. Too bad you're an "anonymous coward" too.
3. Of course an order can be obtained ex parte where you "have reason to believe [the person from whom discovery is sought] will delete evidence"; the RIAA has never had any reason to think that any ISP or university would "delete evidence" of the identity of the "Doe".
4. Jerk.
UNM has not given in to anything. And yes..... good for UNM!!!
As a result of the astuteness and decency of Judge Garcia and UNM, these students will be the first students in the country to have a chance to oppose the discovery motion BEFORE it's already been granted. This was a very, very good thing.
... file-sharing attorney... Yo, Ray! Stop sharing those files, you rascal! Yeah, I thought Eric's dubbing me a "file-sharing" attorney was kind of a poor choice of words.But I have a hunch that the University of New Mexico is doing just that.